Weekend Hot Topic, part 2: Games that should get a battle royale mode
After the success of Tetris 99, GameCentral readers come up with ideas for new battle royale titles based on existing games and films.
The subject for this week’s Hot Topic was suggested by reader Ciara, who asked what other genres, or specific games, do you think should have a battle royale spin-off? A battle royale game being one where a large number of people (typically around 100) compete until there’s only one player left, so that could be anything from a racing game to survival horror.
We were impressed by the wide range of ideas, that ran from movie licences to entirely original concepts. Although the two clear winners in terms of existing games were Bomberman and F-Zero.
I think there’s a definite opening in the market for an endurance racing battle royale game. Maybe not a full-on simulator style one – I’m not sure gaming needs the inevitable scandal of an actual 24-hour endurance racing mode like Le Mans and otherwise you’d need to dramatically up the unreliability or track difficulty to eliminate people.
But an arcade racer battle royale would make sense. I’m not sure if Burnout or Need For Speed have done something like it before, but it seems an obvious choice for them. The game that would be really suited to it though is F-Zero, given the Death Race mode in F-Zero X was pretty much a single-player version of it. And it could something to convince Nintendo to actually make a new one.
I’m hesitant to suggest this given who’s got the licence at the moment but a Star Wars battle royale would be great. I quite liked the Battlefront games but there never seemed to be quite enough people around, less than Battlefield and nowhere near 100. Something that actually looked like a proper battle and not just a skirmish would be great.
But pretty much any movie where there’s thousands of people fighting would be a good fit. I think someone mentioned Lord of the Rings the other day already and that seems a really good fit.
Battle royale really needs to get out of the midset of being a shooter game mode and more of an idea that can be applied to anything. We already have a puzzle battle royale, so why not racing as well, or fighting, or even a Metal Gear style stealth game. But Dynasty Warriors but good, and with all real people, would be my preference. I wonder if it’ll ever happen?
Players in disguise
I’m going to cheat here by saying something I know GC will go for but I genuinely think a Transformer battle royale game would be great. Not only would you have a huge variety of characters but the transforming aspect would allow you to move around a large map very easily. But it’d also let you do a degree of stealth.
Is that a parked car or actually a human player in disguise? If you take the time to blow it up first to find out you’re going to expose yourself to others and waste ammo. Or maybe you chose to be someone like Soundwave who’s alt mode can’t move but he’s really tiny and can spring up anywhere.
I’d play the hell out of that but I have no idea who would make it. Probably no one I guess…
E-mail your comments to: [email protected]
Whale of a time
The next battle royale I’d like to see is Recurrent Spending Royale.
100 players are parachuted into a shop with only their credit cards, wallets and a few family heirlooms. They then spend money on hats, outfits, dances, the mimes of Marcel Marceau, and loot boxes with a tiny chance to get the Big Widget with Bells on it.
Then the circle starts to close and the lower spenders are out. This carries on until the last player standing wins the Big Turkey Carve-Up trophy.
The lobby between games will be a smaller shop where you get told by the shopkeeper that it’s not what you do that matters but how you look when you do it.
As Roger Mellie might spin it, ‘It’s a winner, Tom.’
Of all the console makers that made their first battle royale I never figured it’d be Nintendo, but fair play to them Tetris 99 is really good. In terms of Sony and Microsoft, the Xbox has lots of obvious candidates, although Halo or Gears Of War almost sounds too easy. I know they said Halo Infinite wouldn’t have a battle royale but I wouldn’t be surprised if they made some kind of spin-off that was just that.
Since all Sony’s games are single-player it’s hard to say what would work there. Maybe something could be done with Horizon Zero Dawn, given it has a large open world map already. Maybe half as people and the other half as robots? That’s not something I’ve seen before, so that might be interesting.
I would’ve thought a free game for both companies is the most obvious route to take though and if they weren’t going to do it already then they definitely should after Tetris 99. Strange how they always end up chasing after Nintendo even when it’s not something you’d associate with them.
Hide and seek
Though it always seemed like it was there as a box-ticking exercise in the days when publishers thought that every game had to have a multiplayer mode regardless of whether it suited it or not, I loved multiplayer in Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood. Sadly, it became a bit of a bloated mess in the sequels but I think it’s perfect for a revival as a battle royale.
It was basically a giant game of hide and seek where you were given a target to kill and their general location while at the same time someone was after you. The idea was to move naturally and play slowly to blend in with the crowds and avoid detection/giving yourself away. There were a range of perks and buffs that made things easier or harder for your opponents but, again, using them could make it obvious who you were and who was one of the many dummy bots.
Sure, you had some people who ran around like headless chickens but when it was played properly there was a real tension about who was watching and where the next death might come from. I’d focus on that by having a large map where anybody can kill anybody if they realise they are a human player but there would be consequences for making a mistake/killing random bots.
You would still assign players targets but these would be far enough away that getting to them would be tricky without running/climbing and letting others know who you are. There would be a timer and killing your target in time would have benefits, while failing would make you more visible to others. I think it would create a decent risk/reward system.
If Ubisoft do ever bring multiplayer back to Assassin’s Creed (as they occasionally do) a battle royale mode seems like a good fit to me and hopefully wouldn’t be a box ticking exercise.
andy_b720 (PSN ID)
I’d love to see Mario Kart take on battle royale. All they would have to do is take battle mode back to basics on a grander scale and It would work in single, duo, trio and team modes.
Make it happen Nintendo.
Catch up on every previous Games Inbox here
I do like the idea of Bomberman 99, that is something that needs to happen in my lifetime.
What about a Cluedo Royale? One player would be selected at random to be the killer before a match, as well as the assigning of characters. Only the killer would know who they are at first. It would be set on a typical large estate and you would be free to roam the entire grounds. Even without the official licence there is still huge scope to create a huge range of character archetypes like: a Hollywood starlet, a stuffy professor, a retired boxer, a stern military type, as well as a few priests, vicars, doctors, midwives, and whatnot.
The killer’s goal would be to kill everybody without being discovered – like that whodunit quest in Oblivion, basically. The other players must not only survive but compete to be the one to unmask the killer. Which would encourage players to weigh who to cooperate with and when. Maybe even put opposing players in the firing line of the killer if you think you know who they are.
I don’t know what the time limit could be on this – half an hour? An hour? Any longer than that and people will lose patience.
To stop all the ‘innocent’ players from just huddling together for safety and smoking the killer out that way, everyone on the map would be teleported to another location with everyone in separate positions.
The killer has to stalk his prey, ensure that there are no witnesses and preferably use untimely ‘accidents’. Not that weapons and brute force aren’t options – they would just attract more attention. And character allocation wouldn’t just be cosmetic. Maybe the Colonel Mustard style character is armed with a revolver from the off. The Hollywood starlet might have a very hard time choking out the retired boxer and so on.
And if innocent players do insist on huddling together, perhaps the killer can use the environment to their advantage. Gas leaks and falling chandeliers are such tragically common hazards, are they not?
If the killer does murder another player in front of one or two witnesses, then they have only a very limited time before they can alert the others – assuming that the killer is still considerably outnumbered. If there’s only four or five innocent characters then the killer could go berserk and try to rampage the others and they will either have to kill him first or escape the manor. Just like in real life. No, wait! Forget I said that!
Obviously, killing all the innocents without ever being discovered until it is one-on-one is the top prize for the killer, while unmasking him and seeing him brought to justice by the authorities before he has even murdered anyone is the ultimate goal for the opposition. How you could do that, I don’t know. Innocent players will have to meet a minimum burden of proof. It is more likely that at least a few people are going to get the chop. Unless the first potential victim can overcome and then properly restrain the killer. Which would always be a risk.
No player would be able to see the entire map at once. So, I’m imagining a third-person environment, like Lara Croft’s mansion. But where Winston could be out to give you poisoned tea for locking him in the freezer that one time. You could use stealth, with the killer getting the best stealth, hand-to-hand combat, melee weapons, and a small selection of firearms.
Naturally, no innocent players should be able to kill one another. If they try to without good cause, then they’d get a strike. Three and you would be disqualified from the match. So an innocent player might threaten the actual killer with a gun or punch them in the face, but unless they had good reason to believe they were the killer or acted in self-defence then that would count as a strike.
There would also need to be some sort of dialogue wheel for interacting with other players. Have options to team up, accuse, threaten, agree on a set meeting place after teleportations occur – that sort of thing.
I’m not sure what the rewards for victory should be, though. Fortnite and the like give weapons and stat upgrades – which isn’t really suitable here as the character you play as will be chosen for you. It would be the only way to make it work. Hmm, maybe there would be a separate mode where you can create your own character where you swan around the mansion without fear taking part in challenges and mini-games that are decidedly more friendly.
Victories scored in the battle royale mode would then be spent on customisation options in, oh I don’t know, Gala mode? Soiree mode? I like the sound of Soiree. And the current leaderboard champion would be referred to as either King or Queen of the Castle.
Man, am I creative or what? Come on, tell me that I am. I want to bask…
E-mail your comments to: [email protected]
The small print
New Inbox updates appear twice daily, every weekday morning and afternoon. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length.
You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word 4Player viewer features at any time, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot.
You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.
Source: Read Full Article